BOSTON (AP) — The widow of a state trooper killed by a driver accused of driving under the influence of marijuana is making an emotional plea
against a ballot question that would legalize recreational pot. Trooper Thomas Clardy, a father of seven, was killed in March when a medical marijuana
patient crashed his vehicle into Clardy's cruiser. In a new web video, Reisa Clardy said she believes there will be more accidents and more
fatalities if voters approve Question 4 on the Nov. 8 ballot. The driver, David Njuguna, of Webster, has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter, operating
under the influence of drugs and other charges in Thomas Clardy's death. When he was arraigned in May, Njuguna's lawyer, Peter Ettenberg, said
Njuguna "absolutely denies he was under the influence of any drugs." Ettenberg declined to comment further Tuesday.

While I am very sympathetic to the widow for her loss, using this story as a way to influence voters is in extremely poor taste. First, I guarantee
more troopers have been killed in the line of duty by drunk drivers and guns. Where is the clamor over making alcohol or guns illegal? Second, I
also, guarantee if you took a poll of all the troopers in the country, they would tell you if given the choice between dealing with a drunk or someone
that smoked a little pot the response would be overwhelming in favor of a pothead, like 100-0. Third, medicinally there is no doubt which one of
these would be considered to be more beneficial to one's health issues and it is not alcohol.

This story is made to be a tearjerker. The author makes sure that we are aware that he was the father of 7 and a police officer. I would rather
rather be on the road with someone who has smoked pot than someone under the influence of alcohol any day.

Each person that gets behind the wheel is responsible for the state of mind they are driving in. Are they under the influence of antihistamines,
alcohol, pot or any other medication? Are they angry or distracted, are they texting or talking on the phone or too tired? Have they made sure the
vehicle is safe to drive? Any of these things could be dangerous. It is the responsibility of the person getting behind the wheel to determine if they
are fit to drive.

Calling for non legalization of marijuana because of one death is an emotional one and a knee jerk endeavor at best.

yes it's a plant but its purified in a lab. anything purified to a pure substance like sugar is bad and addicting. ever heard of people chewing coca
leaves? I am against " Dabbing " but weed is not really that bad coming from someone who used it and no longer does ( It's not addicting ) by the way
people eat poppy seeds, a reply to: TerryDon79

originally posted by: FredWreck
yes it's a plant but its purified in a lab. anything purified to a pure substance like sugar is bad and addicting. ever heard of people chewing coca
leaves? I am against " Dabbing " but weed is not really that bad coming from someone who used it and no longer does ( It's not addicting ) by the way
people eat poppy seeds, a reply to: TerryDon79

I was using it as an example of another plant substance that is illegal. And the "it's just a plant" crap.

I'm sorry, driving under the influence is still a crime. Only difference is the perp was committing two crimes at once, one of which is harmless (and
hopefully soon legal) while the other is already a huge deal in this country with alcohol.

Straw man argument, not relevant to the issue of legalization, same argument as MADD, and attempts to exert an influence to vote the issue based on
the voter's emotional response to implied causality of a specific substance rather than the driver's conduct.

Whether the driver who killed her husband was drunk, on heroin or coc aine, or smoking pot isn't relevant to the issue of whether or not a
substance is "legal" or not. Her husband's death is directly attributable to the voluntarily impaired state of the driver - even a driving diabetic
having a blackout is impaired, although it could be arguable whether or not the impairment occurred "voluntarily" (intentional). Point being that
once a driver reaches an impaired state, it matters not how he got there unless you're just interested in stacking on additional charges.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.